Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Tata Cummins (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 46/230 TTJ 676/240 DTR 73 (Ranchi)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Pendency of rectification application before DRP-Tribunal has power to extend stay even beyond period of 365 days if proceedings are delayed for reasons not attributable to assesse.[S. 144C, 254(1)

ADM Agro Industries Kota & Akola (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 238 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Additional evidence-Share premium-The matter is remanded back to Assessing Officer for consideration after admitting additional evidence.[S. 56(2)(viib)]

Solutions Integrated Marketing Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 590 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Credit of TDS in a financial year would be granted only when income corresponding to such TDS is assessed to tax in said financial year-Matter remanded.[Accounting Standard 9 (AS.9)]

JV of TATA Projects Ltd. and Chint Electric Company Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 782/114 ITR 42 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 167B : Charge of tax-Shares of members unknown-Maximum marginal rate-Association of persons-Joint venture between TPL and Chint-Share in AOP’s profit is determinate i.e., TPL 99.99 per cent and Chint 0.01 per cent-TPL is domestic company and Chint was a Chinese company, 99.99 per cent of income of TPL is to be taxed at maximum marginal rate (MMR) of 30 per cent plus surcharge and cess and 0.01 per cent of income of Chint at MMR of 40 per cent plus surcharge and cess. [S. 2(31)(v)]

Aircel Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 199 /116 ITR 36 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 156A : Modification and revision of notice in certain cases-Demand-Moratorium-CIRP proceeding was initiated against assessee and a resolution order was also passed-Assessing Officer was directed to modify demand payable in conformity with order of an Adjudicating Authority as defined in section 5(1) of the IBC and shall thereafter serve on assessee a notice of demand specifying sum payable, if any, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under section 156 and provisions of Act shall apply accordingly. [S. 156, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 5(1)]

DCIT v. Suraj Ltd. (2024) 208 ITD 452/231 TTJ 822/242 DTR 137 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Time limit for initiation of proceedings-Legal grounds-Notice was issued on 11-1-2016-Six years for which proceeding under section 153C could have been initiated were assessment years 2015-16 to 2010-11-Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under section 153C for assessment year 2008-09-Lack of jurisdiction-Assessment order is quashed.[S.132, 254(1), ITAT, Rule 27]

Purohit Food Products (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 407 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Notice issued on 29-7-2022 for assessment year 2015-16-Last date for issuing notice under old provision was 31-3-2022,-Notice is barred by limitation.[S. 147, 148]

Jagadeesan Mani v. ITO, IT (2024) 208 ITD 641/114 ITR 92 (SN) (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained Moneys-Non-Resident-Erroneous facts-Reassessment order is quashed.[S.69A, 148, 148A(b)]

Manish Jagdish Joshi v. CIT (2024) 208 ITD 432 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Sanction-Income escaped less than Rs. 50 lakhs-Notice issued after three years-Income from other sources-Notice is void ab-initio. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151]

Ranjit Singh v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 19 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Initiated as per the decision of UOI v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 286 Taxman 183/ 444 ITR 1 (SC)-Assessing Officer treated initial section 148 notice as section 148A(b) notice as per Supreme Court decision-Reassessment order was passed without issuing fresh section 148 notice-Order is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d)]